February 11, 2010
At a regular meeting of the Southampton County Planning Commission held in the Board Room of the SouthamptonCountyOfficeCenter at 26022 Administration Center Drive, Courtland, Virginia on February 11, 2010 at 7:30 PM
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Dr. Alan W. Edwards, Chairman
Ira H. “Pete” Barham, Vice-Chairman
Douglas A. Chesson
Michael G. Drake
Freeman J. Harrell
Dallas O. Jones
J. Michael Mann
Oliver J. Parker
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Keith Tennessee
OTHERS PRESENT
Beth Lewis, Principal Planner (Secretary)
Richard E. Railey, Jr., CountyAttorney
Susan H. Wright, Administrative Secretary
Chairman Edwards called the meeting to order. (Note: Commissioner Jones was not yet present.)
He then sought approval of the minutes of the January 14, 2010 meeting.
Vice-Chairman Barham moved, seconded by Commissioner Chesson, to approve the minutes as presented. All were in favor.
Chairman Edwards welcomed everyone and advised that they would make a recommendation on each item discussed to the Board of Supervisors who had the final legal say.
Chairman Edwards announced that the first public hearing was to consider the following:
Request by Oscar R. “Tom” McClenny, Jr., for William and Joann Griggs for a
Conditional Use Permit. The request seeks to revise conditions associated with
Conditional Use Permit # 09082005:03, granted in November 2005, to remove the
requirement that requires “townhouses to be sold by the developer, not rented.” The
parcel is located on Jerusalem Road at William Court, and is also known as Tax
Parcel 75-34F. The property is approximately 2.21 acres in size, and is in the
Jerusalem Magisterial District and the Jerusalem Voting District.
Commissioner Drake informed that due to a business venture with Mr. William Griggs, owner, he was removing himself from the panel to avoid any potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Don Lee spoke. He advised that his permanent home was at SmithMountainLake, but he was a part-time resident of Courtland – he purchased one of the townhouses from Mr. Griggs a year and a half ago. He likely would have never purchased it if he had known that the development could possibly be turned into rental property. He thought he was misrepresented. He noted that he did not have any problems personally with Mr. Tom McClenny, applicant/developer.
Mr. Carl Grey spoke. He advised that he resided on Greens Drive in Courtland across from the subject property. It was approved a few years ago for nice townhouses which would be sold. The requirement of a homeowner’s association was added in to try and keep the property looking nice and maintained. At the time, the prices of the townhouses were such that you would likely not have any problems with the appearance of the property anyway. He would hate to see the property turned into rental property, which would mean the possibility of the remaining property being developed with apartment-type buildings.
Mr. Tom McClenney, applicant/developer, spoke. He clarified that Mr. Griggs’ intention was not to turn it into rental property. They still intended to sell the townhouses – they wanted to rent them at this time, but never take them off the market for sale. It would be advantageous for them and for the County for revenue. They were not living in the same world they were living in when they started this project. They were just trying to survive.
Mr. James Green spoke. He advised that he lived on Greens Drive in Courtland across from the subject property. Several years ago, when they (he and his wife and his daughter and her husband) came before them to get permission to build their homes on Greens Drive back off the road, they had a lot of restrictions to build to a certain quality and maintain the property. They had done so and wanted to see it continued in that area.
Mr. Glenn Updike spoke. He stated that he was not directly or indirectly involved in this application. However, he did not see how the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors could have any credibility if they approved this drastic change, especially so soon after approving the original project.
(Note: Chairman Jones came in at this time, 7:39 PM.)
Mrs. Beth Lewis, Secretary, addressed some concerns that had been mentioned. She clarified that the approved plan was for townhouse-style buildings, so any future buildings built there would be townhouse-style and would look just like those there now – apartment-style buildings were not permitted. She clarified that the definition of this type of use was residential, whether the people who lived there owned or rented the buildings – the use, which was single-family attached residential, would not change. The ownership of the property may change, but localities were generally not given the authority to regulate ownership, only use. The state statute indicated that, “zoning applied in each area and district of regulation concerning building and structure design, placement, and uses to which land, buildings, and structures within such designated areas and districts may be put.” She emphasized that the use of the property as residential would be the same.
Chairman Edwards closed the public hearing.
Chairman Edwards stated that per the October 6, 2005 minutes, when this application first came before them, the only two items that generated any major discussion were 1) that there be no rentals, suggested by Attorney Railey, and 2) that there be a homeowner’s association to ensure the property was maintained, suggested by Commissioner Chesson. The “meat” of the conditional use permit was concerning those two items. In his opinion, they needed to leave it as it was – they did not need to lower their standards due to the economy.
Commissioners Jones and Parker indicated that they agreed with Chairman Edwards.
Secretary Lewis clarified for Commissioner Mannthat the condition stated that the developer could not rent the townhouses. As a result, once the developer sold them, the new owners could indeed rent them out.
Commissioner Chesson indicated that part of him was inclined to approve the applicant’s request.
Chairman Edwards reminded Commissioner Chesson that when the original application came before them in 2005, he was adamant that a homeowner’s association be required in order to ensure that the property was kept aesthetically pleasing. If the townhouses were rented, the renters would not be buying into the homeowner’s association.
Chairman Edwards moved, seconded by Commissioners Harrell and Jones, to recommend denial of the request. All were in favor.
Chairman Edwards announced that the second public hearing was being held for the following purpose:
Public review and comment with regard to the proposed FY 2011-2016 Capital
Improvements Plan.
The proposed Capital Improvements Plan is as follows:
Secretary Lewis commented that funds to actually fund the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) would be limited. Commissioner Jones remarked, very limited.
Commissioner Mann suggested in regards tofunds for public development rights, or PDR, which was the last item listed under High Priority (and without an estimated cost), that we add open space and conservation easementsand estimate the cost at $100,000. So was the consensus of the Commission.
Chairman Edwards opened the public hearing.
Mr. Glenn Updike spoke. He stated that if they cared about the County at all, they needed to initiate a landfill. They should’ve started on it 2 years ago. What we were going to do with our trash in the future? If they were not going to look at that, the other stuff was garbage.
Commissioner Jones advised that they were looking at something. He asked Mr. Updike if he was going to sell the County some of his property for a landfill? Mr. Updike replied yes.
Commissioner Mann agreed with Mr. Updike in that waste disposal needed to be on the CIP. Commissioner Chesson agreed and noted that the CIP was like a comprehensive plan, in a sense, and waste disposal should be included.
Commissioner Mann suggested in regards to funds to replace three compactors, which was the fifth item listed under medium priority, that they add the wording andimprovements to trash disposal. So was the consensus of the Commission.
Mr. Updike stated that regarding funds for the bus garage, which was the first item listed under medium priority, they should add that all county vehicles would be serviced with school vehicles. This would save the County a lot of money on vehicle maintenance.
Secretary Lewis noted that she had mentioned it to the appropriate persons and they all seemed amenableto it (although nothing had been officially decided/authorized). (Note: the Commission did not make any changes to the CIP regarding this.)
Commissioner Mann confirmed with Secretary Lewis that per the amendments they made to the CIP this evening, $100,000 needed to be added to the bottom-line total.
Chairman Edwards closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Parker, to approve the CIP (as amended), and forward it to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation for approval. All were in favor.
Moving to the public comment period, Chairman Edwards recognized Mr. Glenn Updike.
Mr. Updike stated that regarding the first public hearing, he did not understand why the proffers would not go along with the property once the property changed hands. The proffer indicated that the developer could not rent the townhouses. However, once the developer sold the townhouses, the new owners could rent it.
Secretary Lewis clarified that there were no proffers associated with the application, as they only came into play with a rezoning, and the property was not rezoned. The original application was for a conditional use permit and conditions, not proffers, were placed on the application. One of the conditions indicated that the developer could not rent the townhouses – they had to be sold. But none of the conditions prohibited the new owners of the townhouses from renting them.
On another note, Mr. Update stated that they could not tell him that A-1 land in Drewryville was worth the same as A-1 land in designated Planning Areas. The assessors did not access property properly. Land located in Planning Areas should be denoted as such on the cards.
Mr. Updike advised that a lot of land/homes had been sold over the past couple of years that were enrolled in land use. Wheneverthis occurred, the property was subject to roll-back taxes. Had the County been following through with this?
Attorney Railey clarified for Commissioner Drake and others that it was the responsibility of the Commissioner of the Revenue.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 PM.
______
Dr. Alan W. Edwards, Chairman Beth Lewis, Secretary
1